MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session March 7, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:45 a.m., on Tuesday, March 7, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O.C. Lee GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Kathy Augustine STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Richard E. Wyett, Chief, State of Nevada Division of Parole and Probation Pete English, Deputy Chief, State of Nevada, Division of Parole and Probation Frank D. Landes, Investigator, Office of the Washoe County District Attorney Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association, and Office of the Clark County District Attorney David F. Sarnowski, Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association Kenneth T. Scruggs, Regional Director, Government Relations, Household International Robert H. van Straten, State Records Manager, State of Nevada Department of Museums, Library and Arts Ande Engleman, Nevada State Press Association, Inc. Pat Coward, Retail Association of Nevada Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Constance L. Longero, Administrator, Unclaimed Property Division, State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association Senator James opened the meeting with comments regarding the matter of tort reform. The chairman indicated there was merit in hearing legislation in this regard. He said he would like the committee to request a bill draft concerning tort reform and added, "There is nothing that is worse for the civil justice system than to have frivolous lawsuits proceed and to have the resulting unnecessary costs foisted upon citizens of our state." Senator James indicated there was a federal law codified in 28 U.S.C. 1927 which deals with frivolous lawsuits and imposes personal liability upon attorneys who unreasonably compound proceedings in this manner. He said he would like to see Nevada adopt a similar statute. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT REGARDING TORT REFORM. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator James stated there were other areas which he believed a reform of the civil justice system merited review, particularly in the area of punitive damages. He said case law definitions of when punitive damages are available to a plaintiff are widely divergent. Senator James indicated it would be "worthy" to consider statutory definitions. He stated he would also like the committee to consider requesting a bill draft regarding the "loser pays attorneys' fees statute" (Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 18.010), since the courts have interpreted the statute as only being available to plaintiffs who obtain a judgment of less than $20,000. Senator James said another subject he would like to approach was regarding raising the monetary limit set on cases which could be brought to mandatory arbitration. Senator James stated he had received a request from the National Council on Juvenile and Family Courts. See Exhibit C hereto. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT PURSUANT TO EXHIBIT C. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) * * * * * Senator James opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 139. SENATE BILL 139: Expands aggravated circumstances under which death penalty may be imposed for murder. Senator Washington explained the legislation was requested in order to add investigators within the State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General and the various district attorney offices, and State of Nevada, parole and probation officers. Richard E. Wyett, Chief, State of Nevada Division of Parole and Probation presented a video tape which was produced by television Channel 4 in Reno. He said the tape clearly projects the type of dangers which parole and probation officers face on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Wyett stated the division presently supervises approximately 12,000 offenders in Nevada, with 1,000 of those persons being under "intensive supervision." He indicated these persons represent a high degree of danger to the supervisory officers. Mr. Wyett said even though the persons they are supervising have been to prison and have been released, they still represent a segment of the community which are "violent predators." He stated the division is concerned about the well-being of its officers. Mr. Wyett added he would like to "send a clear message to the crooks...which will cause some of these offenders to think twice...you are dealing with a law enforcement official." Senator James questioned why the officers from parole and probation were not included in the legislation with other peace officers. Pete English, Deputy Chief, State of Nevada Division of Parole and Probation responded that the agencies listed in the current statute are considered to be "first response" agencies, and parole and probation does not fit into that category. However, he said, they deal with these offenders "just as first responders do." Mr. English said some of those persons are "the worst of the worst." He referred to the video presented earlier which described parole and probation officers as "invisible cops," who are doing the same job as uniformed officers and are placing their lives on the line. Mr. Wyett indicated there had been no parole and probation officers lost in the line of duty in Nevada to date. Senator Lee stated he agreed with the legislation, since the parole and probation officers did their jobs without assistance of police department officers. Senator McGinness asked if the bill would include juvenile probation officers, and Mr. Wyett answered he did not believe they were. Senator McGinness suggested they consider adding juvenile officers, since considering the actions of some juveniles today, those officers are in a great deal of danger also. Mr. Wyett agreed. The next person to speak to the committee was Frank D. Landes, Investigator, Office of the District Attorney, Washoe County, Nevada. Mr. Landes presented a background paper regarding S.B. 139, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. He indicated the paper described the role of a district attorney office investigator within the State of Nevada. Mr. Landes said many of the statements made earlier with respect to parole and probation officers apply to those investigators as well. He said they were not an "initial response agency" but had contact with family, friends and close associates of the "criminal element." Mr. Landes said their officers had the responsibility of serving warrants for nonsupport, which adds to exposure to individuals with a propensity for violence. He said approximately 10 percent of persons served with such warrants are wanted for other criminal charges, with 30 percent of those persons being ex-felons with convictions for violence related offenses. Senator James asked for a comment from Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association and Office of the Clark County District Attorney, regarding investigators from the district attorney offices being included in the legislation. Mr. Graham stated they did not take a position on this bill, but said arguments could be made for the inclusion of district attorneys and investigators. The next to appear was David F. Sarnowski, Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney General, State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Sarnowski indicated his office had providing drafting assistance to Senator Washington in the preparation of S.B. 139. He said they had attempted to provide a "very expanded definition" of peace officer and suggested the investigators within the Office of the Attorney General deal with criminals on a daily basis. Mr. Sarnowski stated even persons being investigated for "white collar crimes" had been found with weapons, although fortunately no escalated incidents had occurred to date. He said investigators involved in death penalty cases could be at risk, and some have been subject to threats as a result of the performance of their duties. Mr. Sarnowski indicated the phrase "special investigators" could be shortened to investigators, on page 2, line 6 of the bill. Senator James asked Mr. Sarnowski if he had suggested they "adopt the expansive definition of peace officer." Mr. Sarnowski answered that was not his suggestion, but rather had indicated he could provide the committee with language if a policy decision was made to expand the definition to cover peace officers in counties and cities and state officials "who come in contact with the public and put themselves at risk." Senator Adler stated he believed the original language of the original statute was phrased as it is, because of a concern that the statute be specific as to what the aggravated circumstance is. He said he was concerned about invalidating the provision in the statute, "...and not having it apply to anybody if we are not careful." Senator James indicated it might not be wise to "go too far down the slippery slope," and add categories that have no rational basis. He added the definition should include people "who are required by their jobs to deal with very dangerous criminals on a day-to-day basis." Mr. Sarnowski stated he believed the less expansive and definitive the law is, "...the easier it would be to defend against a constitutional challenge." He said he believed there was a good, rational basis to list those persons set forth in S.B. 139. Senator McGinness repeated his query regarding juvenile probation officers and asked Mr. Sarnowski for comment. Mr. Sarnowski said the statute "included an aggravator...to kill somebody in order to prevent a lawful arrest." He said juvenile probation officers are Category II peace officers and "therefore have arrest powers." The next person to appear was Eric Cooper, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association. Mr. Cooper advised the committee he had been a member of the interim commission to study the proliferation of peace officer status between the 1991 and 1993 sessions. He suggested a review of the report of that commission, which set forth 84 different classifications of peace officer in the State of Nevada. Mr. Cooper said he learned during the hearings of that commission, "...that the moment you start discussing...or attempting to categorize peace officers positions, you raise the hackles on the backs of all peace officers...." He said although the duties of all those who have testified in support of S.B. 139 have a certain amount of hazard involved, the "laundry list" will continue to increase. Mr. Cooper stated he felt the committee would continue to be faced with an "inundation of people requesting to be moved into this category." He suggested it would be preferable to include "all peace officers," unless that would face serious constitutional challenge. Senator Lee asked Mr. Cooper if the committee heeded the suggestion of the deputy attorney general to assist in developing terminology which appears in other statutes regarding "peace officer," if that might avoid the "slippery slope" referred to by Senator James. Mr. Cooper answered "absolutely." Senator Adler reiterated his comments regarding the danger of having an unconstitutional statute which could mean all cases with "aggravated circumstances" could be thrown out. He referenced Senator James' earlier comments and asked, "How could you say the killing of a brand inspector in the line of duty warrants the death penalty, when a 7-11 clerk is one of the most dangerous jobs in Nevada?" Senator James indicated no action would be taken on S.B. 139 at this time, in order to study the matter further. He then opened the hearing as a work session on bills previously heard by the committee. SENATE BILL 90: Makes various changes to provisions governing the destruction and admissibility into evidence of certain business records. SENATE BILL 91: Makes various changes to provisions governing admissibility and maintenance of duplicates and copies of certain records. Senator James indicated he was unable to be present then the committee heard testimony on S.B. 90 and S.B. 91. He stated portions of the work session relating to those bills would be chaired by Vice Chairman, Senator Porter. Senator Porter stated S.B. 90 related to records which are required to be kept in their original state which could be saved by alternate means. He asked Kenneth T. Scruggs, Regional Director, Government Relations of Household International, to speak to the committee with regard to S.B. 90. Mr. Scruggs stated the bill would adopt a uniform model act with respect to photographic records. He said the act was proposed by the Commissioners on Uniform Laws. Mr. Scruggs said the purpose of the bill was to establish guidelines which companies or government agencies could use for the retention of records. He said the two criteria set forth in the legislation were (1) it must be done in the normal course of business; and (2) the transfer be done in a medium which is known to be reliable and accurate. Senator James asked Mr. Scruggs if he had obtained previously requested information regarding the "best evidence rule." Mr. Scruggs responded the bill as updated is in conformance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states a reliable copy is the same as an original. Senator James stated his understanding of the "best evidence rule" was that a copy was always admissible, and the original did not have to be produced unless there was a genuine dispute as to the authenticity of the copy. He said the bill would change the rule to say a copy could be produced "all the time" because the original was destroyed in the "normal course of business." The next to appear was Robert H. van Straten, State Records Manager, State of Nevada, Department of Museums, Library and Arts. Mr. van Straten stated he was testifying for a second time on S.B. 90, because he thought there might be confusion if a governmental agency "thought they were a business." He said if that were the case, the governmental agency may believed it could destroy records "on its own account." Mr. van Straten said there were "specific laws which guide state and local governmental agencies in the destruction of records." He said he was requesting an amendment which states: "This does not exempt governmental agencies from the provisions of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 239.080 through 239.125." He said these statutes required state and local governmental agencies to have "valid record retention schedules." Senator Adler stated "electronic mail (E-mail) records" were more accessible than paper records. Mr. van Straten said, "Technologically speaking, we are about 20 years behind technology in the State of Nevada when it comes to record keeping." Senator McGinness asked Mr. van Straten if the words "governmental agency" were removed from the bill on page 2, line 5, if it would address his concerns. Mr. van Straten responded, "Either that or adopt this amendment." He added there would be less confusion if the amendment were adopted. The next to speak was Senator Kathy Augustine. Senator Augustine indicated the amendment presented by Mr. van Straten would supersede the amendment suggested the day the bill was originally heard, which would delete the words "governmental agency" altogether. Senator James indicated the present definition included "business means a government agency." He said the new amendment would eliminate that language. Mr. van Straten stated, "If a government agency thinks [it is] a business, [it] will take it upon [itself] to create records retention schedules and destroy records on their own." He said there had been an earlier objection to removing the words "governmental agency" from the definition of "business." Senator James indicated the legislation provided that so long as there is a record retention schedule, "...you can destroy records in the ordinary course of business...and now we are saying government agencies can't do that...they are not by definition a business for that purpose." Mr. van Straten answered that was not the problem. He referenced NRS 239.080, which defines what an official state record is, and it does include an electronic format which governmental agencies may adopt. Mr. van Straten said he believed the problem may lie in the interpretation of the definition by a governmental agency, leading them to believe it is a business, which could adopt a schedule on its own. He added, "State government agencies are sometimes irrational when it comes to reading law, and they will say they can destroy records because they are a business," instead of following the law which states there must be a records retention schedule. Mr. van Straten stated he would like to see 90 percent of the records in existence today kept on electronic media. Senator Adler agreed but said he believed the current retention schedules should be followed. The next to speak to the committee was Ande Engleman, Nevada Press Association. She said the association's concerns with the bill were twofold. First, Ms. Engleman stated, "While there is a definition in NRS 239.080 of an official state record, Nevada has no definition of a public record...neither do we have any statutes which address electronic record...." She said there must be a code in order to access E-mail in this state, "...and that has not been provided publicly or to the press." Ms. Engleman added, "Information is not as public as it would appear on the surface." She stated there must be some definition of "public record" for all governmental entities. Ms. Engleman suggested the removal of the words "governmental entity" from the bill. Senator Adler said the legislation only related to the form copies would be in, not whether or not those copies were public record. Ms. Engleman referred to the "public records bill" from the past legislative session and said one of the problems with that legislation was how the public would access records which are on electronic media. She said there was also no protection for electronic records because "electronic records have not been included as public records in our state." Mr. van Straten responded: "For state records, there is a definition which does include electronic records...but for all government agencies, there is no definition." Senator Adler asked if such language could be placed within S.B. 90. He said the usefulness of the bill would be "cut 50 percent or more" if all governmental agencies were removed. Ms. Engleman said the association's fear was that people would be "given license to destroy records which should be maintained as public records." Senator Washington stated he did not see the legislation as allowing the destruction of records, but rather allowing the transfer of such records to electronic media so they would be more accessible. He added he believed "governmental agencies" should be left in the bill. Senator Adler suggested language be added which stated, "If a record is a public record...and has been transferred to an electronic means of storage...it still remains a public record." Ms. Engleman agreed with that language. Mr. van Straten also concurred in the suggestion. The next to speak was Pat Coward, representing Retail Association of Nevada. He said the association supported both S.B. 90 and S.B. 91. Mr. Coward also agreed with Senator Adler's suggestion. In response to a request by Senator Porter, Senator Adler repeated his suggestion: "Go with the change by the attorney general on cross-referencing the retention schedule...and add `a public record remains a public record' no matter how it is stored, electronically or otherwise." Senator Lee asked what was a "public record", and inquired if his personnel record as a public employee was available to public access. Ms. Engleman answered, "Whatever is public today on paper would be public on an electronic file." She added personnel records were not exempt from the state public records law. Ms. Engleman stated: "Your agency may have passed an illegal regulation saying that no one can have access to it...." The next to speak was Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens. Ms. Lusk stated from the public's point of view, records on electronic media are not easily accessible. She said governmental agencies rarely make their computers available. Ms. Lusk indicated if public records were to be placed on electronic media, then governments must provide the individual members of the public some access to those records. However, she added, there must be some "partitioning" so what is truly public can be reached and what is not public, cannot. Ms. Lusk said the average citizen does not know how to access public records, and there is often no cooperation from the governmental agencies. Senator James referenced S.B. 91. He said the bill would verify that a duplicate of a writing which would be admissible, may be recorded on an optical imaging system. He said the matter of whether the legislation involves a business or a governmental agency is not an issue. Senator James indicated by defining a business as including a government agency, it would be a change in the law with regard to government agency. He continued: "We would be allowing them to destroy records they don't necessarily have the ability to destroy now, because they are governed by NRS 239.080." Senator James stated he believed it would be best not to deal with governmental agencies in S.B. 91 at all. First to speak to the committee was Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorneys Association and Office of the Clark County District Attorney. Mr. Graham stated the association "has a very narrow interest" in the bill, which deals with judgments, convictions, waivers of extradition and presentence reports which under the bill could be sent by facsimile to other jurisdictions. He said they would like to be able to use an electronic transmission system for the admissibility of such documents. Senator James responded: "This deals with a whole other `can of worms' that I am not sure you want to have dealt with in this legislation." Senator Adler stated he had a problem with removing governmental agencies from the bill, since those agencies "...hold 50 percent of the records we are talking about." Senator Titus pointed out the phrase "governmental agencies" was used in the model statute set forth by the Uniform Law Commission. Mr. van Straten repeated earlier testimony on S.B. 90 which concerned governmental agencies believing they were defined as a business. Senator Porter, acting as chairman of the committee, suggested a subcommittee consisting of Senator James, Senator Titus and Senator Adler, study the controversy surrounding both S.B. 90 and S.B. 91, and return to the full committee with recommendations. Senator Porter opened the work session to further testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 155. SENATE BILL 155: Revises certain provisions governing unclaimed property. The first to testify before the committee was Constance L. (Coni) Longero, Administrator, Unclaimed Property Division, State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry. Senator Porter referenced Ms. Longero's recommendation presented during the first hearing on the bill was to eliminate the required mailing by the administrator of a duplicate notice to missing property owners, and to eliminate the requirement to publish names for two successive weeks. Ms. Longero responded there were four issues of concern to the division, which would be addressed in an amendment to the bill which she would provide to the committee at a later time. She indicated the banking industry had registered a concern also, and stated they would add the wording, "...except in the case of property removed from a safe deposit box by the financial institution...the administrator may decline to receive any abandoned property." Ms. Longero said another amendment related to duplicate mailings which the division would like to eliminate, since the holders of unclaimed property are required to notify the owners of such property before the matter is turned over to the division. She stated they would like to add the wording, "In addition to the notice published pursuant to this section, the administrator shall make other reasonable efforts to locate and give notice to the owner of property...." Ms. Longero said there were many services available to the division to locate persons, such as Equifax and the utility companies. Senator Porter asked that the committee see some "very specific steps that you plan to accomplish these goals...before we take action." Senator James asked why the legislation proposed to reduce the time that something was defined as "unclaimed" from 5 to 3 years. Ms. Longero responded that businesses holding property would prefer to turn the property over to the division in a lesser time than 5 years. She also said the division feels there would be a better chance of locating the owners of the property. Senator James responded: "What you are saying is that they are going to lose their property 2 years sooner...." Ms. Longero answered those persons "are not ever going to lose their property," and can always claim that property from the state. She clarified that the unclaimed property does go into the state general fund, but can still be reclaimed by the property owner at any time. The next to appear before the committee was Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens, who indicated the amendments "would be an improvement, but do not resolve our concerns." Ms. Lusk referred to "escheat accounts" which would be permanently lost, and strongly objected to the reduction in time from 5 to 3 years. She also set forth an objection to any implication that would occur "without complete and thorough investigation to find the owners as quickly as possible." Ms. Lusk stated the proposed amendment should be far more specific." Speaking to the committee next was Ande Engleman, Nevada State Press Association. Ms. Engleman stated the association had "somewhat of a vested interest" in the bill, since newspapers make money from a second publication. She said their concern was mainly with the sincerity of the agency in making an effort to find the owners of abandoned property. Ms. Engleman indicated there could be additional information placed into the notification, such as indicating a third person could contact the division and provide information regarding a property owner. She agreed with Senator Porter's earlier comment regarding more specific language regarding what the division would do in place of the second publication. Senator Porter asked the committee members to discuss the different proposals set forth by Ms. Longero. Senator Titus expressed concern regarding the elimination of a second postcard mailing, and reiterated other suggestions that there be a specific reference in the bill to an alternate method of notification. Senator McGinness suggested sending postcards to those persons who have not responded after two newspaper publications, thereby lessening the number of postcards which must be sent. With respect to eliminating the requirement for two successive publications, Senator Porter reminded the committee of Ms. Longero's testimony that publication could be done in a larger number of newspapers, if only one publication were necessary. Senator McGinness agreed with the concept, again stating the necessity for a postcard mailing after the publication. He added the cost savings would allow the division to utilize other searching methods as well. Senator James expressed doubts concerning the elimination of any notice provisions by mail, but did agree with the idea of having one publication to include more newspapers. He stated he believed the additional notice was a chance to reach someone who did not see the newspaper publication. Senator Porter indicated there seemed to be no problem with the portion of the bill regarding the requirement that payment of abandoned funds be made concurrent with the filing of abandoned property report, and the committee members concurred. Senator Porter summarized the committee's feelings regarding S.B. 155. He stated there was a concurrence regarding one newspaper publication, followed by one mailing; and the provision regarding the abandoned property report was satisfactory. Senator Porter indicated the committee had not specifically addressed the matter of a shortened time period. Senators McGinness and James both expressed doubts about the advisability of such provision. Senator McGinness said he particularly did not like the idea of shortening the time when it involved bank accounts, and Senator James agreed there were times when bank accounts are left in an inactive status for years. He asked Ms. Longero if "every single one of these accounts that would be covered by this statute would not be forfeited in any way...they would always be available?" Ms. Longero said the only accounts which would not be covered would be those with balances of $50.00 or under, which would be escheated to the state. However, she added, if the persons are notified, they may "pick up the refund that is owed to them." Senator Porter stated he would entertain a motion with regard to the preparation of an amendment to S.B. 155. SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO S.B. 155 WHICH ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * SENATE BILL 171: Authorizes courts to award as costs to prevailing party costs of certain computerized services. Senator James stated the proposal set forth in the legislation was reasonable, but added he did not believe it should be limited to attorneys who are located in rural areas, although they have greater needs because of limited access to law libraries. He said he was in favor of amending the bill to state, "...including reasonable and necessary expenses for computerized services for legal research." Senator Porter asked how the term "reasonable" is defined in such a situation. Senator James answered it related to costs used "throughout the law," and added it was a matter of judicial discretion. SENATOR JAMES MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 171. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * Senator James thanked Senator Porter for assuming chairmanship of the committee. He then indicated Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association, would present a series of bill draft requests to the committee. Mr. Whittemore stated he would indicate the conceptual basis of each request, although specific language has not been developed. The first matter concerned the 1993 clarification of the scope of the casino entertainment tax and instructions that the Nevada Gaming Control Board was to look at the federal cabaret tax statute to determine the scope. He said there was still disagreement with regard to the scope of the tax. Mr. Whittemore stated the Nevada Resort Association and the Nevada Gaming Control Board are holding discussions designed to produce a regulation which will resolve the dispute. However, he said, if that effort is unsuccessful, the Nevada Resort Association would ask the Legislature to resolve the dispute. Mr. Whittemore said the request was to reserve a bill which would allow for the transfer of administration of the casino entertainment tax to the Nevada Department of Taxation. Senator James asked if the regulators would be requesting their own bill draft, and Mr. Whittemore answered it was his understanding they were not. Senator James expressed surprise that the matter was not resolved, since the committee "went overboard" to try to state a legislative intent in the matter. Mr. Whittemore responded that every two years there is an audit problem, and the association has attempted to resolve the matter pursuant to the legislative intent. He added, "In this case, we have to again prepare for an alternative that suggests we cannot reach resolution." Senator James asked if the association had considered a revenue neutral and tax neutral replacement tax which would be simpler to administer. Mr. Whittemore answered that was an alternative which was in the discussion stage. He said the problem with a replacement tax is that "...within the industry, no matter how carefully we craft it, we create greater burdens to certain individuals within the industry and lesser burdens to others...." Senator Porter stated he believed this should be a taxation question. Mr. Whittemore answered it was in one sense, but added it was the function of the Legislature to handle the gaming tax issue in a way which is directed by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, because of the gaming enforcement implications. He said after a bill is drafted, the committee could decide if it was more appropriately heard by the Senate Committee on Taxation. Mr. Whittemore stated the second bill draft request was the Nevada Resort Association's omnibus bill, which relates to a modification and clarification of the regulation of cashless wagering systems, and would state that the Nevada Gaming Control Board has primary jurisdiction to settle disputes between patrons and licensees arising out of gaming conduct. Mr. Whittemore indicated the third piece of legislation involve information which is provided to the agency concerning employees and former employees of gaming licensees, and would expand the privilege to prospective employers. He clarified the privilege would only apply to the legitimate business interests of gaming licensees. Mr. Whittemore said the fourth request involved persons who might exhibit reckless conduct during sports events. He said this bill would have "general application" in the state. Mr. Whittemore stated the last request would clarify that gaming licensees do not have to pay a gross revenue license fee on chips for which they have not received cash, such as a souvenir. Senator James asked Mr. Whittemore to accomplish the necessary background work to establish any fiscal impact on the proposed legislation before the bills go before the committee. Mr. Whittemore responded he would comply. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO REQUEST BILL DRAFTS PURSUANT TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY MR. WHITTEMORE. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * There being no further business to come before the committee, the hearing was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary March 7, 1995 Page